Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDemocratic Platform Option: 'Guaranteed Health Care for All'
"Health care." In media and politics, the phrase has become a cliche that easily slides into rhetoric and wonkery. The tweaking Washington debate runs parallel to the bottom line of corporate health care. While government officials talk, the principle of health care as a human right goes begging.
Routinely, two contexts -- the macro and the personal -- obscure each other. Numbers may represent people, but people are anything but numbers. Paper, computer screens, claim forms and spreadsheets keep flattening humanity into commodity. But, of course, no one you love can ever be understood as a statistic.
What's in place is a profit-driven system of health care with devastating effects on human beings. Even the most illuminating stats tend to become glib, abstracting calibration of damage to lives in the United States, where at any moment 47 million people are uninsured and another 50 million are badly under-insured.
In the presidential race, with "health care" a frequent topic, John McCain offers more capitulation to the insurance industry. Speaking in the usual GOP terms, he calls for "ridding the market of both needless and costly regulations." Under his plan, McCain acknowledged on July 24, "There would be no limits to premiums."
Meanwhile, nationwide efforts are underway to bring grassroots views on health care into the 2008 Democratic Party Platform that will be adopted in late August at the national convention. In the mix is a "Statement in Support of Guaranteed Health Care for All."
Since it was launched by Progressive Democrats of America last week, the statement has already gained signers among convention delegates from more than 30 states. If you'd like to be part of this effort to move the national discourse on health care policy in a more progressive direction:
* Click here and find the names of your area's delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
* Contact those delegates and urge them to sign onto the Statement for Guaranteed Health Care for All. Any delegate can go online and become a signer.
* Pass this information along to others.
The statement urges the convention to adopt a platform plank to "guarantee accessible health care for all" in the United States, to "create a single standard of high quality, comprehensive, and preventive health care for all" -- and to "eliminate financial barriers that prevent families and individuals from obtaining the medically necessary care they need."
Barack Obama's website summarizes his current position with references to "affordable health coverage," "participating insurance companies" and "private insurance" as centerpieces of his health care plan. But private insurance companies are antithetical to truly guaranteeing health care for all with a single standard of care. They're in the business of limiting and denying health care, while maximizing profits.
In contrast, H.R. 676 -- the single-payer bill introduced by Rep. John Conyers that now has 90 co-sponsors in the House -- would guarantee publicly funded, privately delivered health care for everyone in the United States.
Conyers was the first 2008 Democratic National Convention delegate to become a signer of the Guaranteed Health Care for All statement. It notes that "the U.S. Conference of Mayors, at its June 2008 national meeting, passed a resolution in support of single-payer health care" and that "35 state AFL-CIO organizations support single-payer health care."
We need health care that's publicly funded and guaranteed for all -- not theoretical "insurance coverage" that in the real world is much less solid than Swiss cheese.
Health care. A human right. What a concept.
Norman Solomon, author of "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," is a national co-chair of the Healthcare Not Warfare campaign, initiated by Progressive Democrats of America. He is an elected Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.
60 Comments so far
Show AllThis article is absolutely disingenuous and liberal triangulation. The proposed Health Care For All platform plank is a lie.
tj writes:
"While the article itself specifically promotes HR 676 (single payer)as the way to real universal health insurance, the petition for the delegates to sign does no such thing. It suggests a number of laudable principles without offering concrete action.
... What Solomon is doing (again) is providing cover for Democrats who won't embrace real progressive change (HR 676)by proposing a totally meaningless platform plank that some will sign on to, knowing they can duck a real fight."
Ah, the ins and outs of the "non-profit" health clinics foisted upon California's unrich by Solomon's Republican publishers . . .
Hank Fur:
Spot on! Norm Solomon doesn't seem to have a monopoly on advocating for a candidate who, not only doesn't support, but actually is opposing the causes he purports to champion. Check out the 7/31 CD article from The Nation. "Cognitive dissonance" is an excellent description of what's going on. So the question is why? I agree that name calling is not only not useful but may not even be accurate.
I do think it fair, however to point out that in the milieu most of these folks make their living in, it is not unreasonable for guys like Solomon to conclude that it would be economic suicide to support a guy like Nader. I know for myself that I am most fearless in criticizing the wrongs in a field that I do not depend on to put food on my table. This is, without a doubt, cowardice on my behalf, but, though I aspire to sainthood, I know I have a long way to go.
This is neither to condemn nor defend Solomon and all the rest, but only to point out that they have feet of clay, as do most of us, and to suggest that we not put these folks on a pedestal either to worship or to throw brickbats at. There are courageous folks out there who do have the courage to support candidates in spite of what it might do to their public persona. Check out www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1190 and watch Brian Lamb's (C-Span) interview with Chris Hedges. But by and large, other than when we post in a place like this, with pseudonyms, it is hard to really speak honestly. Another place we can, however, speak freely is in the voting booth. That's why perhaps it is simply a good idea to just read what these folks say about the issue and ignore their opinions on who to vote for, because you are absolutely right - the 2 are diametrically opposed!
Frankly, for me, that is what impresses me about a guy like Nader. He has nothing to gain and a great deal to lose by running, yet he does, for no other purpose I can discern than to stand up for what we really need when the powers that be will not. Perhaps, someday guys like Solomon will join him. Let's hope so.
Now Solomon's a bum, too.
Jesus.
What lies at the root of the Healthcare Crisis is the bloodsucking insurance industry. They are the ones gobbling up the economic resources in the form of wasteful overhead and absorbant profits while denying us the coverage.
Ya think!
I can't help but wonder how Norm Solomon is handling the fact that he's campaigning for a man who has made sure that the president is above the law and can spy on us at will, who has promised to increase military spending, is in favor of capital punishment, who is for corporate run health care, need I go on ... you can look at his record. Never did Obama vote against the war, by the way. He always voted for it.
I know Norm is a good man, has done a lot of good work. I know he thinks this is the best strategy - two corporate candidates - pick one. Howard Zinn says the difference between Obama and McCain is very slight. This gives Norman hope. Nader, McKinney? They are oh so year 2000. For Norm, there's no hope in these candidacies. Who wants to support losers? They just lose. What good is that? What Norm wants, finally, is a winner. Especially a charismatic one. Unfortunately, because he's been fooled by the charismatician, he will be sorely disappointed. It's just hard for me to think of Norm in this predicament. It's like he is against nuclear power plants but becomes an advocate for them, just slightly smaller ones.
IMHO, it's counter-productive - in the long run - to campaign for those who would take away your liberties or provide monies to have people killed (often innocent children) in your name, people who are defending their country from an illegal invasion and occupation. You turn your backs to this kind of person - and pointedly so. And you work to help others understand why that is a far superior strategy. Lessor of two evils strategy has done much to diffuse, deflate the anti-war movement and the worst is: You have to promote what you don't want. Cognitive dissonance is bad for mental clarity.
I hope I'm wrong but, so far, I've been right on the money. The more the progressive movement sidles up to the Democrats, the more they change into ..... Democrats! They now work to bring the rest of us into the fold.
Why don't progressive voters have any teeth? Answer: They've had them all kicked out by the Democrats. So, for now at least, it's down to soft foods and liquids.
acemoab wrote:"Obama is not perfect, but his election MAY allow change. McCain would not."
MAY ?!?!?!
What lies at the root of the Healthcare Crisis is the bloodsucking insurance industry. They are the ones gobbling up the economic resources in the form of wasteful overhead and absorbant profits while denying us the coverage.
Popular wisdom was US Per-Capita healthcare spending was 50% higher than it's nearest rival Canada. Now a recently released report from the Commonwealth Fund published in the New York Times state that US PerCapita Healthcare spending is TWICE THAT of most other industrialized nations.
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2008/july/u-s-spends-more-than-twice-as-much-on-heal...
The only way to address this problem is to eliminate the insurance industry from the picture.
The proposed healthcare initiative by the Democrats does NOTHING OF THE SORT ! The Universal Access Program embraced by Barack Obama will actually serve to codify the existance of the insurance industry's presence in the system in perpetuity. In that respect McCains "do-nothing" approach is far more benign. At least with McCain we could come back 4 years later and take another wack at it. The term "Universal Access" is nothing more than a code word signalling the Insurance Companies will be kept involved.
The California Nurses Association also blasted both of the Dominant Political Parties for inadequate solutions to the Healthcare crisis.
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2008/july/presidential-foes-both-fall-short-on-refor...
So please read through these articles and educate yourself furtherbefore you buy into the Lessor-Evilism preached by acemoab.
acemoab August 1st, 2008 12:43 pm writes "...choose the possibility of something, Obama. Or shut up and suffer in silence..."
-people like this are complete slaves to the current political system in which we continuously spiral ever downward while the party that is supposed to be representing us and standing up to the Republicans actually assists them. No shackles are need, they are enslaved by their own minds.
-about shutting up, sorry 1st Amendment guarantees my right to speak, if you don't like that perhaps you can move to a totalitarian country, I think you would like it there better
Acemoab what have the Democrats done in the last 2 years since they took control of the Congress that would merit a vote? Please give me some reasons to vote for Democrats that aren't reasons to not vote for Republicans (lesser-evilism)
What have the Democrats done to stop Republicans?
This is what they've done:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war
2) Refuse to impeach Bush
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers into the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10) Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here_________________________.
My entire family and many of my friends died because of the so-called health care system in this s**thole country. 101,000 people die every year this way. People who don't want change are worthless, inhumane pieces of crap. Period. There is MORE than enough money to pay for this, especially if we cut funding for the WORTHLESS (fascist, baby-killing) military. Yes, I would have preferred Kucinich or a proper socialist candidate, but the brain-dead conservative electorate is too stupid to choose anyone reasonable. Obama is not perfect, but his election MAY allow change. MAY!! McCain would not. So quit bashing the only chance we MAY have for an incremental change, which is better than no progress at all. An administration is a group of people, and Obama may appoint several reasonable ones. The corporate Republicans have been blocking single payer health care since the Truman administration. Things can't change quickly. However with several horrible things happening at once now, the time is ripe for change. Choose nothing, McCain, or choose the possibility of something, Obama. Or shut up and suffer in silence. Politics exists only to prevent the people from getting what they need and want. Get over it. Perhaps food riots will get their attention. This is the only thing that works. Threaten to damage rich peoples' property and they suddenly notice.
"The real answer is single payer, and that's supported by a big majority of Americans when presented to them fairly."
Absolutely! Single payer is the only answer. Its the only system that has been proven to work well and fairly, though I'm sure we can improve on it.
Notice what an uphill battle it is to get the Democrats to do anything progressive like single payer. Why should you have to lobby a political party that is supposed to represent you? Isn't it obvious who the Republicans and Democrats represent?
Perhaps not to some brain-dead DPA who reads every article no matter how unflattering about Democrats and concludes: The Democrats will save us! Now these cretins have taken to cursing those that disagree with them and point out how the Democrats have sold us out. I now ignore these dimwits.
Notice how the coward chickhawk Obama refuses to stand up to the PTB (powers that be) on health care, on the war, on impeachment and on civil liberties (FISA)?
My heros stand up to power, cowards like Obama bend to it, accommodate it and do its bidding. What courageous anti-establishment position has Obama taken? In what way he he not played it as safe as possible.
My hero, MLK, risked his life and lost it, standing up for his principles. What has Obama risked? He won't even stand by his friends (Jeremiah Wright) Not even on health care will this little man take a chance.
At least McKinney was the first representative to call for impeachment, even before Kucinich. How chickenhawk Obama ever even uttered the word IMPEACHMENT? Nader speaks boldly about our corrupt system. Obama cheerleads it.
The despicable, discredited Democrats and their candidates are the reason the Republicans have trample all over us and the Constitution. The Democrats are the problem not the solution. Dump the Democrats and vote Green!
Green
Republican
Democrat
Invasion and Occupation of Iraq
Oppose
Support
Support
Patriot Act
Oppose
Support
Support
Invasion of Afghanistan
Oppose
Supported
Supported
Kosovo War
Opposed
Supported
Supported
Military Budget
Reduce
Increase
Increase
Israeli Occupation of West Bank and Gaza.
Oppose
Support
Support
Global Warming - Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Support
Oppose
Oppose and Failed to Act.
Right to Choose
Support
Oppose
Support (?)
National Health Insurance
Support single-payer national health insurance
Oppose
Oppose
Clean Water
Support
Oppose
Weak Support
Death Penalty
Oppose
Support
Support
Labor: Wages and Unions
Support
Oppose Workers
Minimal Support
(Global) Corporate Power Trade Agreements and Institutions (NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA, WTO)
Restrict
Expand
Expand
What else needs to be said?
Hey Folks, BIG difference between a National Health Care system as in England and a Single Payer system as in Canada. In England, all public health care givers are government employees (which may be why the system has the reputation it does). In Canada, doctors are private business people and are for the work they do by the governement (single payer). From what information I have been able to read, Canada's system is the way to go. So...what I am sayin' is be careful what you are asking for...you might get something other than what you had in mind.
To ezeflyer:
After a bit of shameless fearmongering about nuclear war (ignoring, of course, the fact that Obama still considers first use of nuclear weapons as "on the table", and that it was a Democrat, Harry Truman, who became the first--and so far, the only--leader to use nuclear weapons in war), you write:
"The best progressive strategy is to register Green or Indy to let McKinney and Nader into the debates, vote for Greens, Indys and Progressive Dems in safe states, but vote for a Democratic President to prevent our death and rendition in the hands of the Republican conservative oligarchy."
Are you not aware that it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who actively fought to keep Nader off the ballot in 2004? The Democrats and Republicans are not exactly the same, but they're only marginally different. They both serve the corporate and imperial interests at home and abroad, and differ mainly in their tactics. A "conservative oligarchy" does indeed exist in this country, and has since its creation. By calling it a "Republican conservative oligarchy," you're ignoring its bipartisan nature.
I'll be happy when its after the election and people like Solomon stop being Democrat shills.
There's a whole crew of these people out there. They are pretty good for about 15 months of a two year cycle. But when election time comes around suddenly they just become party hacks.
By this point, in the last couple of months of this 2-year session of Congress, 'legislative priorities' are very clear as we have seen what was really important to them or not.
Did the Democrats put as much effort into "Universal Health Care" as they did into funding the war and giving the telecoms immunity from prosecution?
Now you know their 'legislative priorities'.
Not to mention that the Democrats talking about "universal health coverage" is a complete con to begin with. The real answer is single payer, and that's supported by a big majority of Americans when presented to them fairly. The Dems with their big contributions from HMOs, insurance companies and big pharma are working hard to PREVENT that and this bull about 'universal coverage' is just a part of the smoke screen they throw up to hide that.
Personally, I think there's got to be a special circle of hell reserved for those who prey upon the sick and miserable to make profits.
SnowWolf August 1st, 2008 7:34 am
Grappa…Health Care IS a Business…not a right
Absolutely correct. They have turned it into a business rather than a calling and have become businessmen rather than doctor's.
But when any business gets out of control as Doctors, Big Pharma and Insurance Companies are nowm, its governments job to protect our citizens from out of control monopolies.
Secondly I'd suggest that the market for drugs is so controlled that our citizens freedom to choose has been taken away.
And I would say that we already pay for a national health plan, a very expensive one. A single payer system would be much less expensive and still allow Doctors to practise privatey...ie...run their own business's much more efficiently and economically. Might even get them a raise.
"Senator Barack Obama has called for passage of universal health care as one of his most important legislative priorities if elected president. Senator Hillary Clinton also called for passage of universal health care as one of her most important legislative priorities if elected president."
When the above paragraph starts out this "Statement for Guaranteed Health Care for All", it is rather clear that this is indeed a cover, for, as far as I can see, neither Obama nor Clinton have ever made "passage of universal health care as one of (their) most important legislative priorities". They have called for access to "affordable" health INSURANCE. But health insurance does not equate with health care, as so many have discovered the hard way. The above paragraph connecting Obama/Clinton with "health CARE for all" is a bit like Bush's connection of Sadam Hussein with 9/11 - got us all excited but is a bunch of baloney. Well, I guess they figured it worked so well for Bush, they might as well try it too. We are SO easily fooled. And, sorry folks, but Obama's plan is NOT a step in the right direction - it is just another rearrangement of the deck chairs on our "unsinkable" titanic health care system.
It is getting more than a bit depressing seeing how often the "lesser evil" argument succeeds in cowing us into reconfirming the status quo. The Charlie Brown/Lucy/football image I have seen used in other posts is so appropriate.
It is true, there are only two parties, corporate and the people. You define your affiliation by your stand on the issues. That's exactly what Norman is doing, taking a stand on the issues. Norman is taking the fight to wherever it leads, including inside the Democratic Party.
Again, you can disagree with the Norman's strategy, but the mind reading and name calling puts you outside of civil discourse.
Norman is submitting a plank to the Democratic Party Platform, not the Barack Obama campaign. More importantly, the branch of government that sets policy is the legislative branch. That's right, the Congress, not the President set policy! The president executes the policy, thus the "Executive Branch".
There are HealthCare Not Warfare endorsed candidates running for Congress. Norman has not claimed Barack Obama is a HealthCare Not Warfare endorsed candidate.
The comment by "wsws.org" has it all, name calling, hypocrisy, and mind reading. Is this the way "wsws.org" is going to talk to his neighbors. Is this the way to make a compelling argument?
We've already heard it. "Michael Moore has turned his back on Single Payer now that's he supporting Obama". How about letting Michael Moore talk for himself. Turning our allies in to straw dogs is dishonest and non-productive. Provide evidence, not character assassinations.
And you want to see it stay that way, right?
Grappa...Health Care IS a Business...not a right
You have to admit there's something "fishy" in this article.
Solomon's support of HR 676 is laudable, but he gets there by way of enciting the reader to support a "platform plank proposal" that is completely vague.
At best this "proposal" would merely allow Pro-Insurance Bloodsucker Concepts like Obama's because folks are afraid to piss off the Big-Money Boys.
At worst this "plank" -and because of his support for it Mr. Solomon's article- is a deliberate attempt to confuse the People by conflating what we understand as "National Health Care" (single-payer, tax-funded, government administered) with Pro-Insurance Bloodsucker Concepts (which really would be a disaster because the Evil Bastards' cut would make it too expensive- especially for a government already in major debt).
Some of us are old enough to remember almost 30 YEARS of vaugue promises to "fix healthcare" from the Democrats, that's why this gets us so ornery.
We'd like real National Health, and we'd like it now please.
Have Fun,
-matti.
MiMiCcS
Solid analysis for the most part Mimi. You are quite correct when you say the "Two" Party Duopoly will never go for it.
But there is nothing to say the people can't throw off the system. Certainly it will take a great deal of work and if somebody like Nader can function as a catalyzing agent it could come much quicker. It certainly will not come if people think they can sit back and wait for it to happen.
Obviously one of the keys necessary to get the ball rolling is to throw off the liberal misleaders, like Solomon, that offer us nothing but empty hand ringing for 3 years and obediant compliance to the Democrat Wing of the Corporate political system during election years. Their drivel just increases the state of paralysis. We need solutions and a plan of action and a citzenry willing to take the initiative.
Far worse than what we face has been thrown off before.
Folks, if you are in attack mode, try attacking the argument. Norman Solomon doesn't deserve the ad hominem attacks.
Solomon is a fine journalist with a lot to say in his books and articles about the sad state of the U.S. corporate media. He's done excellent work, with positive impact.
That said, I'm at a loss to understand his love for Obama, and why he's a delegate for the Democratic Party. I think he thinks that just having a Democrat in office will markedly change things. However, it wasn't true with Bill Clinton, and Obama's much in the same mold, maybe worse.
Maybe, as some suggest above, this healthcare bill is just a trick to gain political points on a policy that's doomed to failure because Democrats feed off insurance company bucks. I haven't checked it out yet. However, if the bill seems worthy of support, I'd do it.
Use every means you have, folks, but when it comes to the Democrats, expect betrayal. And then vote Green.
Obama will never go for it. He is bought out by the same corporate interests that have bought out both parties.
They want people to go bankrput over health care issues, and even the insured get bankrupt for this reason. This allows the banks to take over their assets (more true since they made bankruptcy more difficult).
Also, the more people who lack HC in their 50's and early 60's, the fewer people who end up surviving to collect social security or medicare, and those who do won't last as long.
Talk about it all you want, it will never happen under the current anti-constitutional government. The right and left must come together and reject both the Republican and Democratic parties who are both guilty of treason to the US constitution. Those holding onto the myth that we still have a 2 party Democracy will prevent this from happening.
Health care is a right. not a privilege!
Imgoodman wrote:"For those folks who want to call Norman an "apologist". It's one thing to disagree with one's strategy, it's another thing to "mind read" their intent."
Norman Solomon isn't any "Apologist" he is a "DemocRAT Suck Up"
Who here ever said that Nader was espousing Socialist Idealogy ?
Nader and McKinney are the only candidates in this year's Presidential Race that advocate a Single Payer Health System. Something which Solomon and his Liberal cohorts champion.
Nader is the only candidate that has outlined a specific withdrawal plan from Iraq. Now considering Solomon collected a few bucks off of writing the book War made Easy one would think that Solomon would naturally embrace Nader Candidacy based upon his open and forthright disclosure. But noooooooooo Solomon is banging the drums for a candidate who told the press he would authorize a military strike against a nonhostile sovreign country if "the intelligence is actionable".
I have no problem with Solomon banging the base drum and blowing the kazzoo for the DemocRATS. But he should at least be honest about it. And do the honorable thing and stop writing books and sanctimoniously lecturing the American People about the evils of society which he supports through DemocRAT Boosterism.
For those folks who want to call Norman an "apologist". It's one thing to disagree with one's strategy, it's another thing to "mind read" their intent.
I didn't realize we had so many armed revolutionaries reading Common Dreams. Every commenter here implies they have never paid a sales tax or an income tax. Because if they did, they would be supporting the imperialists and funding the war.
Everyone here is all out, no compromise, no reforms. It's literally , All or Nothing.
On the other hand. If you've actually compromised, let's say, paid a war mongering corporation for something at a store including sales tax. Gee, I guess you'd be what we call a hypocrite.
And when did Ralph Nader announce he was a Socialist? According to your logic, if you support Ralph Nader you are a capitalist "apologist"?
I disagree, I think it's better to stay away from the mind reading. If you are a Socialist who supports Ralph Nader, it's because you just want to move the ball forward.
It's the same for Norman Solomon. He just wants to move the ball forward.
health care for all - my goodness thats gonna cost a penny or ntwo. Ya mean everyone it the world is gonna get US health care? Why if it's universal it's gonna cover alot of folks.
Memo to self: ask accountant how to hide more of my money. think tax shelters.
ezeflyer July 31st, 2008 4:16 pm
"To the MOBs (McKinney's Obama Bashers):
You have our sympathies but you're glued to a flawed strategy that would give us another disastrous Bush/McCain/Repug Administration and nuclear annihilation. And what can you do if you're dead? You won't get another chance to vote for Nader, McKinney, Paul, Barr, Greens, Indy's, nothing. All you get to do is push up posies."
Vote for us or the world will end? Even Karl Rove isn't that hyperbolic in his fearmongering!
Let's take a look at what *could* have happened had the liberal-left, a.k.a., the soft left, a.k.a., the DPAers (Democratic Party Apologists) not punked out in 2000. ...
Ralph Nader declared his candidacy in 2000 at a time when it looked like Gore would wipe the floor with the Republican candidate, George Bush.
And, indeed, that's exactly what *should* have happened. George Bush was the most beatable Republican candidate to have run for president since Alf Landon. (And was even more beatable when Kerry ran against him in 2004).
So let's say that in the last days of the 2000 election Gore was ahead in the polls by such a margin that it was likely he would be elected president. What would have happened is that more people would have voted for Ralph Nader. Why? Because many people, seeing in the final days of the 2000 campaign that the race between Gore and Bush was close, chickened out and instead of voting for Nader voted for Gore.
So let's say that if Gore in the last days of the 2000 campaign was clearly ahead in the polls that Nader instead of getting 2.7% of the vote got, instead, 5%-6% of the vote. ...
Certainly not an unreasonable calculation.
Ok, and with that 5%, as you know, Nader would have gotten federal money. So then let's say in 2004 he added to his 5%-6% and got, say, 7%-8% of the popular vote. ... Again, not an unreasonable expectation.
Now in 2008, would it be unreasonable to expect that he might get, say, 10%-12% of the vote?
If that was to be the case, the political establishment would *have* to reckon with a third party candidate who garnered 10% to 12% of the vote.
My point is -- a viable third party movement takes time to establish – but it has to start at some point. And that point could have been 2000, or even *before* 2000. BUT IT HAS TO START AT SOME POINT!
The Republican/Democratic *Business* Party is running a shell game that has to be the envy of every con man, every shyster, every grafter who ever sat down between a new pair of Florsheins. And the shell game is that the Democratic Party will always put up a presidential candidate who is "slightly better" than the Republican candidate. (That's the hook.) ...
But while this is going on -- this every-four-years voting for the lesser of the two evils -- the political consensus over the past four decades has moved dramatically to the right! To where Richard Nixon in the 1970s signed more progressive legislation than Bill Clinton did in the 1990s!
Put another way -- George Bush didn't just all of a sudden "spring forth from the bowels of hell." George Bush is the logical result of a political consensus that in recent years has moved dramatically to the right.
And who's responsible for that? ... Answer: Those who buy into the notion of T.I.N.A., that is to say, "There Is No Alternative" to the Democratic/Republican duopoly.
So that even if Obama wins in November ... will the Christian fundies go away? ... will the Loony Tunes fascists on the right shrivel up and vanish? Will Rush Limbaugh suddenly lose his audience? Of course not. The political consensus will still be way to the right.
When Ronald Reagan first ran for president in 1968, the Republican Party leadership said: "Naaah! This guy could never get elected president. He's too far outside the Republican mainstream." ... And so what did Reagan's supporters do? Did they give up on Ronnie and find themselves another, mainstream candidate to back? ... No, they stayed with their guy, and 12 years later got him elected president.
The point being: had Ralph Nader gotten the support of the liberal-left in 2000, and gotten just 5% of the vote, it's not unreasonable to imagine that this year he might garner 10% to 12% of the vote.
It has to start somewhere. And it *could* have started in 2000; or even before that.
It's not that Bush won in 2000 and from that point on *to this very minute* the Democrats have fought tooth and nail to stop him at every turn. In fact, quite the contrary. As we all know, the Democratic Party has *enabled* Bush and Company on virtually every issue, domestic as well as international.
And for this the Democratic Party deserves our support? ... The Democratic Party deserves our support for their criminal complicity in the Bush Administration? ... I don't think so.
Thomas More: "I believe we will have national health care for the simple reason that business has decided its a good idea to dump all their responsibilities for helth care on the government…ie…Us."
This is a good point. National healthcare is looked on favourably by US auto plant firms for example. Instead of bearing the full burden of paying for health insurance, a national system like the ones Nader, Mckinney and the Greens are talking about would make US plants more competitive with Asian car makers. Obama's and McCains' plans wouldn't.
Hey guess what dogs? I am getting ready to go with my girlfriend to meet.................................yea, you guessed it buddy- Vincent Bugliosi! THE MAN himself is signing books in Pasadena CA. Guess what hosers? Yea buddy I will have my very own copy of Vincent Bugliosi's "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder ISBN 978-159315-481-3(2008)" signed by none other than Vincent Bugliosi!
I know you dogs are jealous. Aren't you? Kiss my butt!
I looked up the two in my district and called them. Had to leave messages. These little token efforts may help, who knows?
ezeflyer July 31st, 2008 4:16 pm
That was a hell of a great curse!
I believe we will have national health care for the simple reason that business has decided its a good idea to dump all their responsibilities for helth care on the government...ie...Us.
If Solomon (who many of us respected awhile back) would have bothered to retell Kucinich's story during the Miami Convention in 2004 (where he was shut out from offering a single-payer plank to the Platform Committee), he might have a scintilla of credibility on this topic.
Kerry's people stifled that attempt, and his failure to get elected was his "reward" for thwarting democracy and the grassroots (that, and his refusal to challenge voter fraud in Ohio, of course.)
Vote Nader.
Lesser evil capitalists:
'Guaranteed Health Care for All'
pi_dpiper:
'Guaranteed Health Education for All'
Thomas Jefferson:
'Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.
Lawyers
Doctors
Insurance Companies
Pharmacuetical Companies
And Politicians.
These five entities combine to form American Health Care.
What a basket of snakes-how to untangle them?
When I hear Obama say private insurance will be a centerpiece of his health-care I am sad.
But as the article makes clear, the Democrats are way ahead on this one.
Obama '08.
HEAVY RUNNER: Excellent post. Have you read the books by Dr. Robert Mendelsohn? "Confessions of a Medical Heretic" and "Mal(e) Practice"? He explains about the unnecessary surgeries done like fashion statement for all those in the field; jokes about the elaborate drug prescriptions, a bogus brotherhood of alchemist-wannabes, and the deference many, especially women, have for doctors. And insurance companies, they have to be close to hell on the list of who earns the hottest karmic bank account... looking for ways to dismiss those in need to shore up profit in homage to the god of mammon.
.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/social/healthcare/
Single Payer Plan of Nader/ Gonzales
(better than the video)oops...
Norman is such a DP shill. We need Dilbert doing media commentary, not Solomon.
If you want to make Health Care affordable for all...stop the Lawyers from milking Doctors
The operative words SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE! Never forget
I support publicly funded and operated health care. We should have a national health service like Great Britain. A part of this should be recruitment and training starting with kids in high school. We should have National Health recruiters instead of military recruiters. Explain that idea to a teenager you know and ask them if they would like to be recruited for health care instead of war.
I do not like to go to a doctor for an evaluation knowing that his income is directly tied to his diagnosis. If he says, "You are fine" he makes little. If he says "We need to do an extensive battery of tests" he makes a small fortune. This is too much of a temptation to any human being, and undoubtedly results in bad medicine.
We need to take the profit out of paying for health care and also out of health care provision. Doctors should be salaried and their income separate from diagnosis.
"If you think Health Care is expensive now, wait till its free"- P.J. O'Rourke
.
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
Nader Single Payer Video
.
ezeflyer wrote:"To the MOBs (McKinney's Obama Bashers):"
This is not about Obama Bashing it's about Noman Solomon Bashing.
This is not about Obama Bashing it's about Michael Moore Bashing.
This is not about Obama Bashing it's about Barbara Ehrenreich Bashing.
etc, etc, etc
We have seen through their tricks. They get the people revved up on issues of basic Social Justice 24 hours a day 365 days a year for 3 years so they can sell us books and movies. And then election time comes around. And these same champions turn to us and tell us
"Your expectations are to high."
"You have to accept what the Democrats shovel us."
Year after year, election cycle after election cycle there is always another reason we are told and that we should abandon our goals. And each election cycle we grow 4 years older.
Senator Kennedy has been fighting for Single Payer for more than 40 years and he is almost dead and Single Payer is not in sight. Most of us who really want to see a Single Payer System would like it implemented before we die to.
The tricks and chicanery coming from Solomon, Moore and Ehrenreich et al is as evil as anything coming out of the Republican Party.
Our eyes are open and we see through your treachery and deceit.
SINGLE PAYER NOW !
To the MOBs (McKinney's Obama Bashers):
You have our sympathies but you're glued to a flawed strategy that would give us another disastrous Bush/McCain/Repug Administration and nuclear annihilation. And what can you do if you're dead? You won't get another chance to vote for Nader, McKinney, Paul, Barr, Greens, Indy's, nothing. All you get to do is push up posies.
The best progressive strategy is to register Green or Indy to let McKinney and Nader into the debates, vote for Greens, Indys and Progressive Dems in safe states, but vote for a Democratic President to prevent our death and rendition in the hands of the Republican conservative oligarchy.
To the TRDs (Tricky Republican Devils):
If you persist in trying to sabotage the election here, I will place this God's curse on you:
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Mr. Solomon,
You know this is not going to happen. Nor are any of the many efforts to pressure Obama to move back toward the center, or any attempts to donate money only if he moves back toward moderation, going to work.
This guy is a corporate Democrat. How do you think he got so well known so quickly? Going door to door? Ha-ha-ha.
Obama will not bite the hand that feeds him and it ain't the liberal-left, it's the monied elite that calls the shots in this country.
They are going to run all the same plays, just this time, with a black quarterback. And the public will fall for it; and after Obama fails--- as he must--- since his plans are all practically identical with McCain's nutty goals, the conservatives will use their easy access to the mainstream media that most Americans rely on to have their views shaped to say, see, liberal (which was never actually tried by Obama since he doesn't believe in it) doesn't work. And back the political pendulum will swing to another right wing hack---who will run all the same plays Obama had run.
The only way out of this cycle of corporate dominance is to support independents in government and media and education whereever and whenever you can.
tj wrote: "What Solomon is doing (again) is providing cover for Democrats who won't embrace real progressive change (HR 676)by proposing a totally meaningless platform plank that some will sign on to, knowing they can duck a real fight.
The more things change…"
BULLSEYE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1) Does anyone see the words Single Payer in this proposed platform plank ?
Anyone ?
2) Does anyone see any time table in this platform plank ?
Anyone ?
THIS IS A COMPLETELY VACCUOUS AND EMPTY GESTURE !!
PDA is a useless Rump Organization used as a repository to deposit troublemakers in order to render them ineffective in anything they might want to accomplish.
Norman Solomon wrote: "Conyers was the first 2008 Democratic National Convention delegate to become a signer of the Guaranteed Health Care for All statement. It notes that "the U.S. Conference of Mayors, at its June 2008 national meeting, passed a resolution in support of single-payer health care" and that "35 state AFL-CIO organizations support single-payer health care.""
John Conyers knows that Single-Payer is dead under an Obama regime. So he is making like a good soldier and signing on to this empty statement in order to legitmize the Trojan Horse.
BTW please note: "35 state AFL-CIO organizations support single-payer health care."
Is that so Norman 35 AFL-CIO Unions that support Single Payer represent the view of the entire organization ? huh huh huh
The leadership of the AFL-CIO actually opposes Single-Payer and does everything in it's power to undermine it. For those that want verification check out what the Corporate Crime reporter says about the AFL-CIO position vis-a-vi Single-Payer. : http://www.counterpunch.org/ccr11092007.html
Layoff off the shuck and jive Norman !
My "private insurer" walked away from my policy almost before I left the ER after heart bypass surgery.
Why anyone would want to give a private, for-profit company the final say on life-and-death personal health issues is a mystery to me (excepting of course those lining their pockets from canceling such policies rather than honoring them).
Ok Here it goes...
I have lived in Sweden, France, Holland all countries with SOCIAL PROGRAMS ...BUT,
The have very smart people and the encourage health conciousness...
We eat crap in the USA and we deserve to be sick!
We should have a 'Guaranteed Health Education for All'
This would solve the problem of sickness due to ignorance...
good luck,
DO NOT FORGET TO PAY THE PIPER!!!
Noam Chomsky addressed this issue on an Al Jazeera interview. Even thought public opinion has always supported universal health care it was not mentioned in the 2004 election. It's being talked about now because capitalists want to cut benefit costs. G.M. and Ford ect. They may be able to trump the private profiteers. Then it comes down to who pays for it.
But, but it will cost - half as much as we pay now!
Yes and you'll end up in hospital after crashing the flashy car you bought with the money you saved.
This article is absolutely disingenuous and liberal triangulation. The proposed Health Care For All platform plank is a lie.
While the article itself specifically promotes HR 676 (single payer)as the way to real universal health insurance, the petition for the delegates to sign does no such thing. It suggests a number of laudable principles without offering concrete action.
While 676 is not perfect (it relies heavily on a regressive flat payroll tax for the bulk of its financing), it is the best concrete proposal on the table. And it, like any bill, is subject to amendment.
What Solomon is doing (again) is providing cover for Democrats who won't embrace real progressive change (HR 676)by proposing a totally meaningless platform plank that some will sign on to, knowing they can duck a real fight.
The more things change...
Official Dim Health Care Policy: MANDATORY HEALTH INSURANCE - If you bleed, you pay and pay and pay for the rest of your life and no Chapter 7 - that's IF they don't murder from medical neglect - because you're worth more to them dead.
So, Obama will GUARANTEE, if you don't have money to pay Billion$$ executive salaries, you get tax liens and garnishments and jail. Your bail will be the amount you owe the HMOs - "The spice must flow".
This is a Corporate Techno-Slave Plantation to secure the wealth and private law of Oligarchy, isn't it? That is your only reason for existence, isn't it?
I support the Green party as well, but to think that ANYONE has chance against corporate America (while the MSM still dictates our priorities and ideologies) is sadly disillusioned.
There are Democrats (such as Dennis Kucinich) who do support government funded, universal healthcare, but as we have seen over the last few months, he was no match for the deep pockets of corporate America and the biased media. The remaining Democrat unfortunately also appears to be keen on not ruffling the feathers of his corporate sponsors and therefore I have no choice but to vote 'non-corporate' (Reps.&Dems.) this November.
hr 676 is just a ploy to placate liberal democrates into THINKING that their party has their interests at heart. That legislation will never make it out of committee.
Yeah, thats really what the american people need right now, MANDATORY HEALTH INSURANCE, whether you like it or not. Im in a red state anyways, so one less vote for obama isnt going to matter. Im voting green party across every line there is a candidate available. GREEN PARTY needs just 10% of the vote to be eligable for public funding for the next round of elections!!! show the democrates that their constant selling out to corporations that dont give two cents to the american worker will not go unpunished at the polls!! wake up people! time for a viable third party in this cesspool of greed called the good ole usofa.
Norman, stop giving people false hope about how the democrates will help them, its a lie, and the title for this article is a lie. DEMOCRATES, JUST AS REPUBLICANS, SERVE THE CORPORATIONS NOW, NOT THE AMERICAN WORKER!! STOP VOTING AGAINST YOUR OWN INTERESTS!!! VOTE GREEN PARTY!!!
and it may not even be four times as good
'Guaranteed Health Care for All'
What? Just like the rest of the civilized world?
But, but it will cost - half as much as we pay now!
They have my vote!